For those of us that didn't know, and I include myself in this group, Jack O'Connor used to be the Shooting Editor, of Outdoor Life.

Lately I ran across some of his writings and want to ask what you know about the man.

At the time of the publications I am reading, I wasn't into reloading/hand-loading. Some of you very well may have been. I would like to hear your opinions of the man and his writings.

We all know Elmer and Skeeter, Major Nonte and Dean Grennell.

What about Jack?

For those of us that didn't know, and I include myself in this group, Jack O'Connor used to be the Shooting Editor, of Outdoor Life.

Lately I ran across some of his writings and want to ask what you know about the man.

At the time of the publications I am reading, I wasn't into reloading/hand-loading. Some of you very well may have been. I would like to hear your opinions of the man and his writings.

We all know Elmer and Skeeter, Major Nonte and Dean Grennell.

What about Jack?

He was an advocate of a 7x57 Mauser. The stores were full of 8 mm Mausers in wooden barrels with the butt stocks sticking out. 50 bucks, I think. No 7 mm to be found. He brought about the universality of the 270 as Elmer did the .44, and Warren Page did the .243. They and Ted Trueblood, Robert Ruark, and Corey Ford gave me the first tastes of classy writing and the longest lasting opinions of ethical hunting and proper equipment.

I read almost ever article and book that Jack wrote. Seems that he was pretty honest in his assessment of what cartrigdes could do based on my 40+ years of hunting experiance. I even went and had a 03 Springfield rebarreled to 7X57 back in the late 60's because of his writings and a lack of commercially avalible 7X57's . I just wish that I would have used another action other that that pristine -03. I had 2 -03's and back then (60's) they were cheap. Now a pristine 03 is worth lots more.

I have to admit too that Jack got me into sheep hunting with his articles but I did it with a 30-06 and not a .270 Win. IMO he had an easy reading style of writing that I enjoyed although I have to admit that a lot of people didn't care for his style.

Kirmdog

he pretty much made the 270 winchester famous, as mentioned above.

I'm evidently older than you.I read a great deal of Jack O'Conner's writing.

In my opinion,he was one of the more knowledgeable of the gunwriters in that day.He is known for his admiration of the 270 Winchester but yet he was far more diverse than that.He wrote a great deal about using the 416 Rigby,for instance.He was an educated man and his rifle and handload advice was in a very straight forward way with no B.S.

He was also a man with integrity.He and Keith had an ongoing feud which lasted for years.I mention his integrity because he challenged Keith on a lot of his statements when practically no one else would.Keith was a rock star of gunwriters and to buck him was not healthy for a gunwriter's career.

In spite of the fact that Keith is still placed on a pedestal to this day,those who knew him knew that relating the truth was sometimes optional with him.(that's the nicest way I can put it).I know a man who lives in Idaho who knew Keith personally and I'll spare you the adjectives he uses in describing Keith.However people need their heroes.

In my opinion,O'Conner was a big cut above average.I believe that he was honest in his reports and this is NOT something I can say of all the gunwriters,then or now.

http://www.jack-oconnor.org/about/aboutJack.htm

There are a lot of things that can be said for or against some people. Chunkum, RIP, talked with Elmer on several occasions and had nothing but praise for Elmer's information and conduct.

Jack has on occasion been accused of using a faulty scale for some of his infamous .270 loads. I personally doubt that, but you hear all kinds of things.

I believe the dispute between Elmer and Jack was brought about by their two different approaches to rifles. Jack was one of the forerunners in the "small, light and fast" way of thinking and Elmer was pretty much a proponent of "big or bigger". There's truth in both ways of thinking. A little dispute certainly has a way of increasing magazine sales.

I always enjoyed his writing. He always struck me as someone who wrote the truth and not just what the ad men wanted.

I even have a book or two of his in my library.

__________________
Mike
USMCR 84-87, USAF 87-07

The feud had little or nothing to do with a difference of opinion about light and fast vs heavy and slow.It had to do with honesty.Keith was very flawed in that area,regardless of who regarded him as a heroe.

"STORIES" of Keith's are famous for being pure B.S. and O'Conner called him on it repeatedly,describing the story,the ficticious events and the out and out lies.To say that they simply didn't agree on rifle ballistics is sheer nonsense.O'Conner called Keith a liar on several occasions.

Stay on subject, please. We are discussing Jack not Elmer.

If you want, we can start another thread discussing the pro's and con's of each gun rag writer. In this thread though, stay on topic.

I have a reason to ask this, there is another thread coming in relation to this one.

Thanks.

Smith Crazy,

I apologize for seeming to mis-direct the thread but in my opinion,it's difficult to talk about O'Conner without drawing attention to his frank statements about Keith.

I place a high value on honesty and don't really care who worships Keith.

I believe it's a tribute to O'Conner to point out his integrity and therefore his private and public friction with Keith is very relevant.To me,it says something about him as a man.

I haven't intended to be disrespectful to anyone here.

Mr. Keith told me Jack was a very good writer. In fact he related to this on two different occasions.

It's my understanding Jack didn't like to gut or skin. BTW this didn't come from Mr. Keith.

__________________
Joshua 1:9

One more thing, I have used a lot of the handloads for 7X57, 270 Win and 30-06 that Jack had talked about(working up to the top loads suggested by Jack). I didn't chrono them but got simular accuracy to what he talked about. I still use his top loads with a 130 gr bullet and 4831 in my .270 and never had a problem in my rifle. Some have said that this is over what should be used in a .270 but in my rifle I have had no signs of it being too hot. His 7X57 handloads with 160 gr bullets were right on also.

Kirmdog

Jack O'Connor was an excellent writer and an accomplished hunter. We see his caliber very infrequently in gun writing circles.

__________________
195th Session FBINA

He made due with standard calibers, just like us.

__________________
Joshua 1:9

Understood my friend. No apologies necessary. I too put a high value on honesty and integrity.

It would seem we all have our heroes, canoe. Nothing wrong with that if they are deserving of the honor. It sounds like Jack was.

I believe I have read almost every book that Jack O'connor ever wrote. Hw was not overley opinionated, loved beautefully classic stocked rifles and shotguns and had the hunting credentials to backup his firearms choices. He was not a handgun affianado but concentrated on rifles and shotguns. His biggest gripe was of a writer of note who had made one safari to Africa and then wrote several books related to African hunting and firearms. I always assumed he was referring to Robert Roarke. Also, he was a writer from my home state, as was Ted Trueblood, Elmer Kieth and Bob Hagel.

Julian

In the 50's there were three outstanding shooting editors for the major outdoor magazines, Jack O'Conner at Outdoor Life, Pete Brown at Sports Afield, and Warren Page at Field and Stream. They were all excellent, but O'Conner was really great IMHO.

The real measure of a writer's work is how much of it still stands up over time. If you set aside some of the load data that has changed as powders have evolved, O'Connor is still dead-on.

So is Keith, for that matter.


Okie John

Jack O'Connor lived up at Lewiston. I was a rifle HUNTER long before I was a LEO and got into handguns, Hence his writings were much more germain to me than manuy others.

The thing I enjoyed about O'Connor was he talked hunting and the guns used were just part of a whole. Yes, he liked the 270. He also was perfectly happy with the 7x57 and advocated it's use and it's what Elinore, his wife used.

I read hunting books. All this gun stuff is simply so I can shoot and hunt. Hence O'Connors stories of hunting Coues deer and sheep and were things I read because I figured I might actually some day do them, which I have.

He was still alive when I got out of the service and the several of the older ISP troopers stationed in Lewiston were shooting buddies. I got to go shoot a Rock Chuck or two a couple of times by tagging along and keeping my yap shut.

He's well worth reading. I think I have all of his books. I have to admitt never having read a single magazine article he ever wrote, or any of the rest of them until I was at least into my mid 20s. Gun/outdoor magazines aren't something your family spends money on if you live smack dab in the middle of the 4th largest county in the US.

RWT

Just now reading "Complete book of Rifles and Shotguns" by Jack O Connor ironically.
While I'm relatively young, I find it interesting that a lot of bullets I assumed were new, have been around since O' Connor's time. I have found it to be a very interesting read. Looking forward to your follow up post Skip. You've got me curious...

__________________
JD 500

I grew up reading Jack O'Connor articles and books and although I can't say I was heavily influenced by his writing, I still very much respected his experience and opinion.

IMO, his writings about the 7x57 and .270 are timeless, and equally appropriate today as they were in 1959. "Sheep and Sheep Hunting" remains the definitive work on the subject, IMO.

O'Connor wasn't a "magnum" fan, and also IMO if he were still around he'd probably consider the "short magnums" as being solutions to non-existant problems.

O'Connor was quoted as saying that he only ever wrote a dozen articles during his career, and just kept changing the first and last paragraphs. I appreciate self-deprecation in a person.

As for Keith, he had a lot of experience upon which he drew his writings. I do recall the words of Thomas G Samworth of the Small Arms Technical Publishing Co, who published Keith's first books in the mid 30s, "big Game Rifles and Cartridges" and "Sixgun Cartridges and Loads." Samworth was not too kind when speaking about Elmer's writing, and said that the book manuscripts needed so much editing that "Keith was the author in name only." Be that opinion as it may, Keith was experienced and influential and his legacy lives on in high-power large caliber handguns and their use to this day.

Noah

__________________
Nicht mehr als 30 Zeichen

Well, something else I aimed at and hit!

That was the purpose of the post, to spark interest.

While some quote Elmer as the only valid oracle from the "gun world" it is nice to find out that he had other contemporaries with equally valid reputations.

Remembering that these folks, while endued with special attributes, are only that, folks. All of them, Elmer included, was just a person, fallible as the rest of us. Did he have good things to share with us? Absolutely! Was he instrumental in the development of some classic cartridges? Definitely. Was he perfect? Not hardly! Just like me and you. As we study Jack we will find the same thing about him. He wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, so don't look for that, I'm not.

I am astonished at the folks that know him by name here. That's great.

I am just reading one small portion of his writings that has been enlightening and encouraging to say the least.

I'll give you a hint about the following topic/thread. It has nothing to do with his love for rifles per se. More to do with reloading/hand-loading. I don't want to give too much away at this point.

I want to wait a day or so to allow everyone that has a comment about Jack to post it here. Thanks for the input to this point. Keep it coming!

Jack O'Connor is my favorite gun writer because he was very knowledgeable about both guns and writing. His refined style still makes the most pleasant reading.

For reasons about which I am not completely clear, I did not spend much time with O'Connor's writings as a young, budding, full-time gun nut. Like most, I've always viewed him as a well-respected writer and a gentleman, and staunch advocate for the .270. My development (deterioration? ) as a shooter, hunter and reloader was much more heavily influenced by the writings of Skeeter Skelton, George Nonte, Charles Askins, Bill Jordan and Elmer Keith.

BTW, I've seen copies of a couple of Elmer Keith's "first draft" manuscripts. He was almost illiterate; he couldn't spell or punctuate to save his life. Editor's nightmare, but his experiences were priceless. I've been given to understand that O'Connor's writing needed little editing, but I have not seen proof of that.

I grew up reading O'connor too, though I didn't follow his writings as much as some of the others mentioned here. I wasn't that much of a hunter and I used to go to the details in his storys more focused on the rifles he used, the gunsmiths who built them, etc.

I do remember they had a few of his books in the library in High School (mid 60's). Wonder if they'd dare do that now.

As a young man I read just about everything that Jack O'Connor wrote in Outdoor Life. Of all the things he wrote, one story stuck in my head, probably because he applied humor to a serious issue. He was writing about hunting "accidents" and related a story about a young woman who was sitting on a rock smoking a cigarette when a "mountain lion hunter" shot her. He wrote "obviously he thought she was a mountain lion sitting on a rock smoking a cigarette". He had a very easy style of writing that held my interest.

If you are interested, his papers are housed at Washington State University and are listed in this link.

http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/hol...sc/finders/cg457.htm

Frank

__________________
sona si latine loqueris .

I have read a couple of books by him, one was a gift and the other I bought used from a library, My shooting interests are quite a bit different from his writings. Anyway, I'd heard a long time ago he wasn't what he was supposed to be. Where ever it was and from who ever said it, they claimed he had other people do most of the work on his projects and he just wrote about it and liked to get in front of the camera all he could. I don't think this came from Elmer Keith either becuase I've only read a couple of his books too, and this was way before that.

I guess this isn't really an opinion of him, I've never formed one of my own.

Frank,

They have a listing of his writings, but they aren't accessible without some other process.

I'm sorta like 38-44, with thoughts of O'Connor being pretty much noted for being a one trick pony. He is best remembered for his strong advocacy of the .270, normally in a M70 Winchester.

I usually found Outdoor Life to be a waste of time, so I didn't read it or Field & Stream with any regularity. I liked Guns & Ammo, which is what I subscribed to after I got out of the Navy in 1965. That's were Elmer was writing, not O'Connor.

As far as Elmer being illiterate, here's a personal letter he wrote, which is entirely understandable, even with the common typos that are generated on a manual typewriter.

Cool, Paul! That is indeed more easily decipherable than the couple of missives I've seen.

What sticks in my mind about O'Connor and Page is their objectivity, modesty, and accuracy of observation.

Many other writers of their time were of such advanced ego and dedication to special interests that their writing was more like a Ned Buntline dime novel. Chas Askins sticks in my mind since he published article after article about his pet "wildcat rifle" projects, each of which was "so vastly superior to ordinary cartridges as to render them all instantly obsolete." (YAWN)

__________________
Science plus Art

Paul, there is a link on the top of the page where you can contact the university about availability and cost of reproduction of his papers and photos. I'm not sure I am interested enough to spend cash for it now.

__________________
sona si latine loqueris .

I think you're right Frank, I didn't read him much while he was alive, so I don't see any reason to change now.

Like a lot of you, I grew up reading Cactus Jack and Elmer, and learned a lot from them.

Fifty years later it seems that Elmer's writings were more pertinent than Jack's.

For those of you who haven't read them, I recommend JACK O'CONNOR by Robert Anderson and JACK O'CONNOR Catalogue of Letters.

For Elmer, read ELMER KEITH, The Other side of a Western Legend by Gene Brown, and LETTERS FROM ELMER KEITH by Timothy Mullin.

I'll not prejudice anyone's opinion, but they're very enlightening.

Still have my .338s, 270s and a bunch of .44s!

Good shooting.

__________________
Good shooting.

I'm a technical guy. It's what I do for a living. If you compare the two (three if you include Skeeter) which ones seem to be more specific technically?

For the most part, Elmer and Skeeter are going to give you more in depth information on handgun loads. I don't know that I've ever seen anything from O'Connor on handguns. OTOH, O'Connor will possibly give you more on rifles, especially if he was pushing that particular variety of .270.

In more modern times, John Taffin has pretty well taken up the mantle on handguns.

Skip,
I think that technically Elmer was way ahead of Cactus Jack- .44 Special development,.38/44 work, High Power competitor, arsenal work in WWII,etc.

Simply stated, Keith was a shooter, Jack was a hunter. That's probably the way Outdoor Life wanted it. Jack seems to have had better "sponsors".

With all due respect to Charles A. Skelton, and I love his work, he wasn't in the same league as the other two. He was a great story teller, but, by his own admission, was not an experimenter. Let's call him a great Pistolero.

John Taffin does has done great work for the past 30 years, mostly handguns, and Brian Pearce is excellent also. Got to admire anyone who's built two copies of #5!!! Of course, both are admitted Keith and Skelton fanatics.

Good shooting.

__________________
Good shooting.

I agree with Paul that O'Connor probably never mentioned handguns in his articles. While he was a proponent of the 270, I don't think he was totally committed to the high velocity school of thought like Roy Weatherby. He wrote that the 270 was the best for its intended purpose but he did use heavier cartridges when appropriate. I also remember he did some development work on wildcat cartridges based on the 7x57 Mauser and I remember him doing some practical experiments on heavy brush performance of various calibers. If anyone is interested, I ran across a re-print of some of his favorite 270 loads.

Frank

__________________
sona si latine loqueris .

I'd be interested. I did a Google search for just that information and didn't turn anything up. It seems that I remember 60+ gr (maybe 63?) of H4831 being in that list.

[email protected]

I don't remember where I read it but I believe Mr. O'Connor liked the K22. I seem to remember he carried or at least had it close at hand most of the time.

__________________
Mike
USMCR 84-87, USAF 87-07

His favorite load with the 130gr. bullet in the 270 was 62 gr of H4831. I use this load in my 270 although some say it's too hot it appears to be fine in my rifle.

Kirmdog

I loved reading Jack O'Connor's articles, but it seemed to me that he overrated the .270 Winchester in his later years...........almost to the extent that nothing else was as good in his opinion.

I loved his stories about sheep hunting in Canada.

__________________
NRA Pistol Instructor

You have a good memory Paul.
Here is a link

https://www.24hourcampfire.com...00528/page/4/fpart/2

__________________
sona si latine loqueris .

I knew them both, O'Connor not nearly so well as Keith. Keith worked many years as a guide, and witnessed many less-than-satisfactory cases of smaller bullets failing in less-than-ideal conditions. When Keith shot something, or when his client did, Keith wanted the animal to die.

O'Connor was a more polished writer, and tended to describe the beauty of taking a game animal with the perfect shot angle using a finely-tuned cartrige of modest recoil.

Keith wanted the animal to die, even if the only shot angle available was less than ideal.

BTW I knew Keith for almost a decade and shot with him. I know of no case where he exaggerated or shaded the facts in any way. I DO know that sometimes his editor(s) changed (out of ignorance) some of the relevant details of his articles, and it drove him crazy.

Also as an aside, a young woman I introduced to Jack O'Connor later referred to him as "That vile old man!"

Even Charlie Askins didn't elicit that kind of reaction from the women I knew...

__________________
JR, the 500 Specialist

John,

I suppose you don't have to be old enough to have watched the Cardinals play at Sportsman's Park on Grand Avenue, but being that old certainly increases one's chances of having met Keith and/or O'Connor.

It should come as no surprise that O'Connor was the more polished writer. After all, he was an English teacher!

There are also many who don't have a clue about how much Elmer actually wrote in the way of private communications and that he did it all on a manual typewriter with no "white-out". Typos were common, especially without time to go back and do the corrections needed before moving on to the next response.

The thing that strikes me as being extraordinary was Elmer's accessibility. He really didn't seem to have any reservations about people calling or writing and usually had time to devote to them. The comments I've heard have been along the lines of it being like talking to a grandfather/mentor, not a celebrity.

In my early years I very much enjoyed Jack O'Connor's articles & took my first 6 elk with a 270 using 130 gr Hornady slugs. Later in life he wrote a article about sheep hunting in Mexico & explained that there were 2 ways to aquire a sheep tag, that was to spend a great deal of money & wait your turn or.....you could get one quite easy if you knew the RIGHT people...........(government) he stated that HE knew the right people & could always get a sheep tag, I never liked him after that!
In the early 70's I started stopping in at Elmer Keith's place to buy a book & visit for a few minutes, I did this several times over the next 6-7 years, my wife would go with me & visit with Lorraine & Elmer would take me out back to his trophy room, he only had 2 animals in the house, a sheep & a sable. In the trophy room out back was where he did his writing, etc. lots & lots of animals, some were very old skull mounts. He was always very polite & patient, I only wish I would have been able to shoot with him a few times.
Ross Seyfried wrote once that the best shot he ever knew with all 3 guns, rifle, handgun & shotgun was Elmer Keith. Pretty good endorsement!
This is one of the books I bought from Elmer.


This is his book Safari, it is very rare as only a few copies surivived a flood.




Dick

I suppose that I opened the gate in this thread for discussing Keith.I did not do it out of malice towards the man.I have a copy of sixguns and it was his writing that inspired me to begin shooting and handloading for the 44 magnum which is my favorite to this day.

My reason for bringing him into a thread about O'Conner was the reason for their feud.I have no doubt that Keith was likeable to many.As an aside,I have known a great many people in my life who were extremely likeable but yet were reckless in their dealing with facts.

The comments that Keith was not known to this person or that to ever tell falsehoods is pretty easy to dispute.Keith was famous for telling stories that were grossly inaccurate in order to advance his theory about anything.

Nitpicking over this or that among rifle calibers is boorish and shallow in my estimation and so I don't have any intention of opening that door but I can give a couple of examples.

In one story,Keith related how a medium size black bear was treed and the hunters were armed with lowly rifles of less than .338 caliber.As I recall,one was a 300 weatherby and the other a 270 winchester,in his telling.The bear was shot about 8 times or so without any apparent effect at all.He didn't even seem to notice until by chance one of the shots from the 300 weatherby just happened to hit his spine.It was only then that the bear fell and died.

In another story,a mountain sheep had been hit with a lowly 7 mm rifle and the sheep was hit several times through the lungs with no effect whatsoever.The guide who was present at the event stated later that the sheep was hit once,dropped dead and Keith was actually several miles away at the time.

I could go on but what's the point?If another thread about Keith ever starts and I add anything,I will not bring any of this up.I only brought it up to begin with because I thought it was relevant about O'Conner.

I don't put any man on a pedestal which certainly includes O'Conner.All human beings have flaws....period.

Out in the cabin I saw that typewriter and wondered at IT. HEE HEE

__________________
Joshua 1:9

Not to dispute anything, but just to question the veracity of one man's word against another man's word.

I would think that part of the problem of believing Elmer did what he did is due to very few being able to duplicate what he did.

As already stated, he was more than proficient with handgun, rifle and shotgun and was active at one time in competitive shooting. I just don't think O'Connor had credentials that even remotely approached Elmer's.

Here's John Barsness' latest article on 24 Hour Campfire.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/...ters/April_2009.html

While it isn't about the .270 specifically, it is about multiple hits to no seeming effect. This quote may also have a bearing on the matter of multiple hits.

Brad Crawford, a friend of mine and fellow attorney who died several years ago (tragically young) had met Elmer Keith while on a hunting trip in Idaho. He and his hunting buddy evidently just drove up to Mr. Keith's home unannounced, and Elmer met them at the door, wearing one of his 4" Model 29s and his big hat. After introductions, Brad and his buddy were invited in and spent a couple of hours "just visiting" with Elmer. Accessible, indeed!